| Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent who focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He writes the SCOTUS, Explained newsletter for Vox. |
|
|
| Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent who focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He writes the SCOTUS, Explained newsletter for Vox. |
|
|
The horrifying implications of this week's transgender rights argument in the Supreme Court |
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images |
This story also appeared in this morning's edition of SCOTUS, Explained. Not a subscriber yet? Sign up here. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in United States v. Skrmetti, arguably the most important transgender rights case the Court has ever heard. The case asks whether discrimination against transgender people can violate the Constitution — and it appears most of the justices feel it does not. The likely result is that the Court will allow states to ban health procedures that enable gender-affirming care, both for minors and, potentially, adults. The argument went terribly for transgender Americans, as many of the justices suggested creating a carveout from the ordinary constitutional rule restricting sex-based discrimination of all kinds. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, suggested giving the government broad authority to engage in such discrimination in the medical context — a ruling that could also have severe implications for women generally, including cisgender women. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said at one point in the argument, "I'm getting kind of nervous" that the Court is going to chip away at one of the "bedrock" principles in US anti-discrimination laws. Skrmetti involves a 2023 Tennessee law that prohibits trans youth from receiving medical treatments, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, if those treatments are prescribed to help them transition. Notably, the law is quite explicit that its purpose is to "encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex" and to prevent young people from becoming "disdainful of their sex." Although this particular law involves a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, Tennessee's arguments in favor of the law could also permit the government to prohibit adults from receiving the same treatments. At least four justices — Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — appeared all but certain to vote to uphold Tennessee's law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, signaled midway through the argument that she was open to Roberts's call for a medical carveout from the Constitution's restrictions on sex discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Republican who authored a landmark opinion protecting trans rights in 2020, was silent throughout the argument. That left only the Court's three Democrats to defend the orthodox approach to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, which casts a skeptical eye on any law that treats people differently because of their sex assigned at birth. The biggest question in Skrmetti, in other words, is likely to be how the Court finds a way to uphold Tennessee's law, rather than whether the Court does so. |
How the Court's current precedents approach laws that draw lines based on sex |
The most important thing to understand about Tennessee's law is that it explicitly draws lines based on a patient's sex assigned at birth. If a child who is assigned male at birth is prescribed testosterone by their doctor, Tennessee permits that child to receive that treatment. But a child who is assigned female at birth may not. Indeed, while Matthew Rice, the Tennessee solicitor general defending his state's law, tried many times to deny that this law classifies based on sex, he eventually admitted that it did after being pressed by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson. Jackson, for example, asked Rice whether this law would permit a boy who seeks testosterone because he wants to deepen his voice and otherwise enhance his masculinity to receive that treatment, and Rice eventually conceded that, under the specific law at issue in this case, the boy could. Rice then eventually admitted that, if a girl sought the same treatment for the same purpose — to deepen her voice and to make her body appear more masculine — Tennessee's law would prohibit her from receiving the treatment. This matters because, in United States v. Virginia (1996), the Supreme Court held that "all gender-based classifications" are subject to "heightened scrutiny," meaning that the law is treated as presumptively unconstitutional and the state has to prove that its law was not enacted for impermissibly sexist reasons. Some laws survive this heightened scrutiny, if those laws are grounded in real differences between the sexes and not in prejudice or stereotypes. But, under Virginia, any law that draws lines based on sex in any way whatsoever receives this higher level of review from the federal courts. Neither the Biden administration, which argued against Tennessee's law in the Supreme Court, nor the ACLU, which represents families that want their transgender children to have access to care, asked the Supreme Court to definitively strike down Tennessee's law right now. Rather, the sole issue before the Court is whether to send the case back down to a federal appeals court that previously refused to apply the heightened scrutiny required by Virginia. But many of the justices appeared determined not to apply Virginia to this case. Roberts, for example, warned that there are "medical nuances" in this case that weren't present in Virginia or some of the Court's other previous gender discrimination cases. And he suggested that the courts should take a more deferential approach to state lawmakers in cases involving medicine because judges are not good at making medical judgments. Kavanaugh echoed Roberts's thinking, suggesting at one point that the Constitution does not take sides on a "medical and policy debate." And Thomas and Alito's questions, meanwhile, were consistently hostile to the two lawyers arguing in favor of trans rights. Virginia held that "all" laws that draw lines based on sex must survive heightened scrutiny, even though some laws ultimately clear this hurdle. "All" means all. But now many of the justices seem eager to hold that only some laws that classify people based on sex are presumptively unconstitutional. |
This case arrives at the Court at the worst possible moment |
It's hard to divorce this case from its political context. During his recent victorious presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump went all in on anti-trans rhetoric — spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars on ads that, in the Washington Post's words, "paint trans people as a menace to society." Republicans control six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court, so it's not surprising that a majority of the Republican justices seemed to align with their party's position on trans rights (the Court's three Democrats, for that matter, also appear aligned with their own party). It raises the question, however, if the Court can create a medical carveout to the general rule that all sex discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional, what other carveouts might they create in the future? For that matter, will the Court also create similar carveouts for other forms of discrimination, such as race discrimination?
The Court most likely will not hand down an opinion in Skrmetti until June 2025, when the Court normally decides the biggest cases of its term. But based on Wednesday's argument, Skrmetti appears likely to not just be a historic blow to transgender Americans, but potentially a similar blow against all people who might experience unconstitutional discrimination. |
|
|
| Can DOGE cut $2 trillion? |
Elon, Vivek, and the Department of Government Efficiency want to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. A libertarian says the only way to do that is to eliminate aid programs altogether. |
|
|
Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images |
Where YIMBY-ism goes from here: The "Yes in My Backyard" movement advocates for more housing and fewer barriers to making that happen. While more people are beginning to acknowledge that zoning and homeowner self-interest can block much-needed new housing, there's no clear consensus about what kinds of homes should be built, how they should be built, or where. Experts say we shouldn't expect policymakers to take necessary steps for reform. Trump's FBI director pick is conspiracy-theory-obsessed: During appearances on Steve Bannon's podcast, Kash Patel claimed that China is funding the Democratic Party, that former president Barack Obama is behind a "shadow network" that has directed the intelligence community and Big Tech to persecute President-elect Donald Trump, and that Attorney General Merrick Garland wants to throw Trump allies in prison. Rates of colorectal cancer are up in young people: According to a data analysis, one in five new colorectal cancer patients in the United States is under the age of 55 — nearly twice the rate it was in 1995. Researchers are working to figure out why. How this synthetic psychedelic became a popular party drug: "Tucibi" — also called "pink cocaine" or "tusi," after the synthetic drug 2C-B — made headlines in connection to pop star Liam Payne's death in October. But it rarely contains any 2C-B or cocaine at all. It's cheap to make, and some manufacturers are including addictive substances like heroin and oxycodone to batches "with the aim of creating dependency." Why dessert at restaurants is so boring: While drinks and entrees tend to vary from place to place, there's a consistent playbook when it comes to restaurant dessert: think classics like lava cake, sorbet, and cheesecake. This video explains why they're the trickiest part of a restaurant's menu-making puzzle. |
What's on the horizon for HBO: The next season of the popular dramedy White Lotus will be back in February. A Game of Thrones prequel, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, is also in the works for 2025. [Variety] Will the SEC reconsider its crypto crackdown? It might be a possibility if Paul Atkins, a crypto advocate and a former SEC commissioner, becomes chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Atkins for the role. Atkins is known for his conservative viewpoint, previously objecting to penalties for companies accused of fraudulent conduct, and his support of a free-market economy. [AP] Troubles for Trump's nominees: Weeks after Matt Gaetz's nomination for US attorney general was tanked amid sexual misconduct allegations, Trump's nominee for Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, could be facing a similar fate. Republican support for his nomination is wavering in light of a new wave of allegations against Hegseth of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct that date back years. [New Yorker] |
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images |
|
|
"Gender policing is now a blood sport online, where women who seem to defy traditional expectations of staying hot, quiet, chaste, and weak are humiliated and attacked en masse." |
Roni Bintang/Getty Images |
Are you enjoying the Today, Explained newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up for it right here.
And as always, we want to know what you think. Specifically: If there is a topic you want us to explain or a story you're curious to learn more about, let us know by filling out this form or just replying to this email.
Today's edition was produced and edited by senior editor Lavanya Ramanathan, with contributions from staff editor Melinda Fakuade. We'll see you tomorrow! |
|
|
| Subscribe to The Verge Our friends over at The Verge have launched a new subscription that offers readers an opportunity to pay to get fewer ads and unlimited access to every story. Learn more about their subscription here. |
|
|
|
